Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad
We await this finding. If they just wrote opinions, how could one know whether it was deliberate? It seems to me that proof would require:
A) Word had to be passed from the WH on what conclusions they wanted. "We need you to create an opinion that permits the harshest levels of interrogation possible, although that may be unlawful. We will make sure you aren't held accountable."
or
B) Evidence that the DoJ attorneys had a different opinion before being asked. "Attorney X published an opinion ten years ago that stated unequivocally that waterboarding is torture."
|
UT.....The DoJ OPR investigation (to determine if the attorneys who wrote the torture memos were guided solely by legal issues or slanted their legal advice to provide the White House with the conclusions it wanted) could very well come down to e-mails:
Quote:
The Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility has been investigating the work of lawyers who signed off on the interrogation policy, and is believed to have obtained archived e-mail messages from the time when the memorandums were being drafted.
If it turned out that the lawyers initially concluded that aspects of the proposed program would be illegal, then reversed that conclusion at the request of policy makers, then prosecutors could make a case that the officials knowingly broke the law.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/us...egal.html?_r=4
|
IF....the OPR finds that there was political influence......the shit will hit the fan.
But as you noted....we await this finding.